Science Policy and Public Awareness

Oh yea, no tropical storms this year, sure, well here's the latest from the Pacific.

Super typhoon for those unaware, is roughly comes between a strong cat 4 to cat 5 in hurricane talk. And this is the third one this year to hit the Philippines. And this is the third super typhoon and 18th ttyphoon to hit this year alone.

During a normal season, by the way, they get 20 tropical storms/typhoons, the season runs through the end of May

Full article: http://www.philstar.com/philstar/NEWS200611300406.htm

 

Getting back to the OP's original point, I don't think it was the scientists at all. What RUINED the GW argument was when the green extremists got involved and made dire predictions that did not come true.

I personally blame the MEDIA. Instead of reporting the boring facts from 20-30 yrs ago (yes, the scientists have known about this for years) they decided to make it a CRISIS, with doom and gloom and hysteria. When it didn't pan out....well...does everyone know the story of the boy who cried woolf???

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov, 08:36 PM) [snapback]355558[/snapback]</div>

What dire predictions have not come true? The only predictions I've heard from the people warning about GW are on the timescales of decades, not long enough to have happened yet.

 

I think the scientific evidence is clear that we are in a warming trend, and that the planet has had them before. When they take ice core samples and can determine, with great accuracy, that the level of CO2 has risen greatly over the last few hundred years, it helps to validate the different models of where we are headed.

The question becomes if the "tipping point" theory is correct, if we have already passed that point, and if not, how close are we? From what I've read, science is still debating those points, but not the basic point that we are in a warming trend (no matter what the oil companies say).

One of my frustrations with the evolution/creation debate is the same frustration with this debate. Its simply hard for a casual observer to get at the truth because the "sides" are polarized on the issue and hurling insults at each other. And it doesn't look like the debate is about science at all, but about atheism or anti-globalism or culture wars or any of the other agendas that seem to come out when people discuss these issues.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Nov 30 2006, 02:09 AM) [snapback]355593[/snapback]</div>

That I beleive to be an artifact of the media. In every article about evolution they feel the need to include someone with the contrarian view. In truth, that evolution happened is a fact within the scientific community and is very hard to get scientists to debate about it!

Same with climate change. More than 90% of papers published by climatologists agree climate change is anthropogenic. However the media makes it appear as a 50-50 proposition.

I guess confrontation sells...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Nov 30 2006, 01:09 AM) [snapback]355593[/snapback]</div>

The trouble is, it's NOT a debate, any more than chemistry vs. alchemy is a debate. And yeah, you can blame the press for making it seem like it is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 29 2006, 11:13 PM) [snapback]355602[/snapback]</div>

The press does have some responsibility, but let me ask you a question:

Why do we have to make global warming a referendum on Conservatives? Or evolution "proof" that God is a myth?

Neither issue should be framed in the context of a debate between atheists and believers, or liberals and conservatives. Questions of science should be debated on the merits of the science and not external political or religious factors.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Nov 30 2006, 10:18 AM) [snapback]355658[/snapback]</div>

In an ideal world, I agree. Unfortunately, it's the politicians who want to make these political issues. If it were up to the scientists, they'd stick to science.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 30 2006, 07:45 AM) [snapback]355668[/snapback]</div>

Well, its hard to say that when you have scientists who are aggressively debating it, such as Dawkins and Collins (see the current issue of Time Magazine). The problem is that guys like Dawson are agressively atheistic, and you get the feeling they are looking for proof of their position (just like the religious guys are) rather than letting the proof lead them to their decision.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 30 2006, 01:44 AM) [snapback]355565[/snapback]</div>

I can remember reading articles in papers and magazines and TV programs that talked about oceans rising 20 ft in just 20 years (back in the 80's) or that certain countries would be like arid deserts (they aren't yet). Also about skin cancers and all sorts of "sky is falling" stuff. I didn't say the eminent scientists did this, I am saying the media found the extremists and thought it would make better "sales" and interest so gave these "kooks" more face time than the boring scientists.....kinda what still goes on today in politics/ religion / science/ etc.

And need I say that WE (collectively) encourage this by buying this crap and arguing all points as if they are all equally valid.

Not all opinions have equal weight or validity (especially mine which are FAR superior to anyone elses...except maybe the Squid's, or Galaxee's)

 

i agree with you schmika... the media is currently the only real outlet for dissemination of this information to the general public, and drama/excitement sells so whether or not it actually exists in the situation, they create it. and the public eats it up.

there have been a few websites set up to inform the public about current research topics/findings but where do the vast majority of people find their science information? news shows, magazines, popular news sites online, etc.

really, raw scientific information (primary literature) is hard to reach and even harder to understand unless you are in the sciences. i see scientific societies talking about how to reach out to the public more effectively for these very reasons.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Dec 1 2006, 09:19 AM) [snapback]356161[/snapback]</div>

Couldn't agree more and one of the major debates focuses on the science community's need to reach out and communicate to the public in a manner that will gain their attention and interest. I refer you to a panel session held at the Hayden Planetarium in the American Museum of Natural History which I had the great fortune to attend live which provides a fascinating conversation about Carl Sagan who was a huge advocate of public communication of science (ie, his Cosmos series). His widow, Ann Druyan, is an amazing person in her own right!!

Carl Sagan: Science & the Search for God - http://www.amnh.org/podcast/snc/?src=p_h

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov, 08:42 PM) [snapback]356095[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you about the media finding the extremists, and the public buying it. Personally, I try to stay away from that type of media, but it is pretty pervasive.

About the skin cancer thing, that was an ozone hole issue, which was real, and the eminent scientists were decrying it (including many that I worked for in the 80s and 90s). Skin cancer was becoming a big issue in Australia. But the world acted on the problem by cutting back the use of CFCs and other chemicals through the Montreal protocol, before it got too bad, and as a result the ozone hole has stopped growing and is now showing signs of recovery.

I have never heard anybody claim the oceans would rise 20 ft in 20 years.

The arid desert thing is real too. Huge parts of Africa and China have dried up. Originally, the farmers in such areas in Africa were blamed for over-farming. But it is now believed instead to be a global warming issue. That's really interesting if this was predicted back in the 80s.

 

I am going to use me as an example, up until about 3 years ago I was a "Global Warming...HAH!) person. I didn't care to spend the time sorting through all the arguments and the nay-sayers said all the right things to help me "validify" my point of view. I also could not STAND the shrill scrams of doom and gloom on the far left (of the issue).

I went to a conference (for gardening, no less) and a speaker showed photos of various glaciers with 100 yrs ago, 50 yrs ago, etc. He spoke about various things happening in a very factual, non-hype type of way. In the end, he basically said even HE was not sure WHAT could be done...just that something had to be done. In fact, he was confident the U.S. citizens would find a way to fix this as soon as they recognized it as a problem...he felt this was something this culture was good at.

Anyway, that is all it took, I am convinced GW is real....now I need to solidify WHAT needs to be done. I tend to go with "let the experts...not politicians" give us some advice...and follow it. (oh, no politician recommended experts either)

 

Cool, Schmika!

 

I believe in Global Warming but not a catastrophic one and not a human induced one. Some good reading here.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...57/ai_n13610445

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34753.html

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 5 2006, 07:56 PM) [snapback]358285[/snapback]</div>

You may want to pay attention to who is paying the author of the garbage you're reading.

"Steven F. Hayward is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (www.aei.org) in Washington, D.C., and a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute (www.pacific-research.org) in San Francisco.
...
The American Enterprise Institute and Pacific Research Institute are both heavily funded by oil billionaires Koch Industries, and Richard Mellon Scaife (Gulf Oil)."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_F._Hayward

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 5 2006, 08:08 PM) [snapback]358290[/snapback]</div>

Right back at you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 5 2006, 08:11 PM) [snapback]358293[/snapback]</div>

Oh, good one! I get the brunt of my global warming information from the scientists I work with, who are paid by taxpayers.